tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post8839255271054981680..comments2024-03-29T07:38:07.393-07:00Comments on The Eponymous Flower: Live Action News: Ectopic Pregnancy Warrants AbortionTancredhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16015531337154301560noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-83161475266208351892019-09-25T07:10:54.379-07:002019-09-25T07:10:54.379-07:00Thank you, Nancy.Thank you, Nancy.Dymphnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01469622835449220113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-5378183471464327602019-08-23T14:49:01.861-07:002019-08-23T14:49:01.861-07:00One thing’s for sure, you’re not interested in dis...One thing’s for sure, you’re not interested in discussing things that have been sincerely put to you.<br /><br />You’re telling people what YOU think official Church teaching is.Tancredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015531337154301560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-35456422248940538582019-08-23T10:04:48.772-07:002019-08-23T10:04:48.772-07:00"We have come a long way, haven't we? We&..."We have come a long way, haven't we? We've come from you insisting that this is the teaching of the Church..."<br /><br />I continue to insist that the Church teaches that the surgical removal of a tubal pregnancy (salpingectomy) is morally licit. <br /><br />"...to finally admitting that there are dissenting and more nuanced opinions about it."<br /><br />I never denied that there are dissenting or nuanced opinions about it. The entire article is an exercise in dissent. <br /><br />"Do you know that any of the theologians with dissenting opinions have erroneous ideas about human development?"<br /><br />Past or present?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-52029699727135731032019-08-22T12:54:49.878-07:002019-08-22T12:54:49.878-07:00Anonymous 0954:
"It doesn't mean all the...Anonymous 0954:<br /><br />"It doesn't mean all theologians. It most certainly doesn't mean that the Church had spoken authoritatively, either. Besides, just as Thomas Aquinas and other renowned theologians of the Church had very erroneous ideas about prenatal development, so too were later theologians catching up with the science of human reproduction. It is the ruptured tube, and not the baby, that causes the threat to the mother. These days, it is clear to see that the tube and the baby are separate entities. "<br /><br />We have come a long way, haven't we? We've come from you insisting that this is the teaching of the Church to finally admitting that there are dissenting and more nuanced opinions about it. <br /><br />Somehow, you managed to do without being the insulting, imperious, easily ruffled and aggrieved anonymous but magisgteria authority to a more reticent commenter. Bravo!<br /><br />Do you know that any of the theologians with dissenting opinions have erroneous ideas about human development?Tancredhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16015531337154301560noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-82661187534522393592019-08-22T09:54:56.956-07:002019-08-22T09:54:56.956-07:00Jack,
You said:
"I don't think that this ...Jack,<br />You said:<br />"I don't think that this section of the 1917 CE article would necessarily apply to salpingectomies on women with ectopic pregnancies. That statement would more apply to women who have illnesses unrelated to their pregnancy, and surgeries/treatments which are not designed to remove the fetus."<br /><br />It could apply to salpingectomies. Btw, salpingectomies are not designed to remove the fetus. They are designed to remove the tube. <br /><br />" If you read the history I provided again, it states that the theologians had considered the question and ruled it out as abortion."<br /><br />It doesn't mean all theologians. It most certainly doesn't mean that the Church had spoken authoritatively, either. Besides, just as Thomas Aquinas and other renowned theologians of the Church had very erroneous ideas about prenatal development, so too were later theologians catching up with the science of human reproduction. It is the ruptured tube, and not the baby, that causes the threat to the mother. These days, it is clear to see that the tube and the baby are separate entities. <br /><br />"Besides, the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia are not wholly reliable, since they are often just the opinion of one scholar..."<br /><br />Demonstrate that the article was the opinion of just one scholar.<br /><br />"The history says that it was already an established "tradition" among the theologians that such salpingectomies would class as abortion..."<br /><br />Prove that this "tradition" was authoritative and binding on the universal Church.<br /><br /><br />"...until in 1933 a Jesuit lawyer published his doctoral dissertation in which he applied the PDE in a novel way."<br /><br />The science backs him up. The tube and the baby are separate entities.<br /><br />" Now if you admit that there are Catholic theologians advocating the use salpingostomies and methotrexate contrary to the magisterium..." <br /><br />The science doesn't back them up.<br /><br />"See, it shows how in the use of salpingectomies you are presuming, perhaps, what God's plan is."<br /><br />Any course of action (or inaction) that is morally licit is not contrary to God's plan. If it's not contrary to God's plan, then it is part of God's plan. <br /><br />"If Mary had been told by a doctor that she was suffering an ectopic pregnancy, we can fairly safely presume that, with the virtue of supernatural faith, she would have resigned to suffer whatever the consequences of this disease were, without taking steps that would reduce what ever tiny chance the doctor would say the survival of her baby had."<br /><br />We can say with absolute confidence that it was NOT God's plan for Our Lady to experience an ectopic pregnancy. <br /><br />And since Mary's response to this crisis would be one of trusting resignation to God's providence, should that not also be the response of Catholic mothers generally? <br /><br />Again, it was not God's will for Mary to face the crisis of ectopic pregnancy. And if she had, she could have morality opted for a salpingectomy. What if God's plan had been for Our Lady to have other children in the future? If you can change the story, then so can I.<br /><br />Also, there are some important differences between Mary and other women. Although Mary was married, she avoided all conjugal relations with her lawful spouse. Should other Catholic women imitate Mary's example and enter only into virginal marriages? <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-25499232301472059262019-08-22T00:14:24.839-07:002019-08-22T00:14:24.839-07:00I don't think that this section of the 1917 CE...I don't think that this section of the 1917 CE article would necessarily apply to salpingectomies on women with ectopic pregnancies. That statement would more apply to women who have illnesses unrelated to their pregnancy, and surgeries/treatments which are not designed to remove the fetus. If you read the history I provided again, it states that the theologians had considered the question and ruled it out as abortion. Besides, the articles in the Catholic Encyclopedia are not wholly reliable, since they are often just the opinion of one scholar, and seeing as you admit that not all Catholic scholars are truly aligned with the magisterium, presumably you admit the possibility that the Catholic Encyclopedia may also not always align with the magisterium. The history says that it was already an established "tradition" among the theologians that such salpingectomies would class as abortion, until in 1933 a Jesuit lawyer published his doctoral dissertation in which he applied the PDE in a novel way. Now if you admit that there are Catholic theologians advocating the use salpingostomies and methotrexate contrary to the magisterium, and without being actively reprimanded by the authorities, then you should also admit the possibility that – under the influence of this Jesuit laywer, and many other pressures – the authorities have falsely allowed the use of salpingectomies these last 80–90 yrs. Certainly what I find very conspicuous is that the former "tradition" which outlawed such salpingectomies, and allowed mothers to die with their baby under this ruling, has been almost entirely BURIED so that I had to find it in a history book, seeing as no contemporary paper in speaks of this position as a possibility. I find that very suspicious indeed. It's almost like the Church's deafening silence on usury over an extended period of history.<br /><br />"But this is a pointless exercise. The morality of surgically treating a tubal pregnancy is already established, and trying to apply the situation to Our Lady doesn't change that. God's plan for the mother of His son did not include complications of pregnancy, and that was for a reason. It was a necessity for God's son to live outside his mother until the point of adulthood. For many thousands of other babies, God's plan is different. He permits miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other maladies that prevent live birth."<br /><br />See, it shows how in the use of salpingectomies you are presuming, perhaps, what God's plan is. If Mary had been told by a doctor that she was suffering an ectopic pregnancy, we can fairly safely presume that, with the virtue of supernatural faith, she would have resigned to suffer whatever the consequences of this disease were, without taking steps that would reduce what ever tiny chance the doctor would say the survival of her baby had. And since Mary's response to this crisis would be one of trusting resignation to God's providence, should that not also be the response of Catholic mothers generally? Evidently that was the response Catholic mothers were expected to have prior to 1933 and the Jesuit lawyer from Oklahoma. <br />Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-71485642672276770732019-08-21T17:32:04.650-07:002019-08-21T17:32:04.650-07:00"So for years Catholic chaplains, under the d..."So for years Catholic chaplains, under the directives of Catholic theologians, were allowing women to die with their babies rather than letting them cut their fallopian tubes in order to save their lives, since, at that time, this was understood still to be an abortion. But then in 1933 a Jesuit lawyer came along and said that those theologians and chaplains were wrong, those mothers' sacrifice was needless all along, since after all, the morally prudent thing WAS to cut the fallopian tube!"<br /><br />The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 says:<br /><br />"However, if medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother's life, is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked."<br /><br />1917 came well before 1933.<br /><br />It appears that those Catholic theologians and chaplains in hospitals who were refusing the surgical treatment of tubal pregnancies were making that decision without authoritative statements from the larger Church. <br /><br />Perhaps you are not aware, but with medical advancements come NEW moral questions. For many centuries, prenatal development was poorly understood. Today, theologians are faced with the pressing question concerning the morality of embryo adoption. Is it morally licit? Some generous couples are understandably anxious about the fate of the thousands of frozen embryos that remain in fertility clinics. Their solution is to take discarded or unwanted frozen embryos and have them implanted in the wife so that these may have a chance at growing and being born alive.<br /><br />Years ago, Latin Mass Magazine ran an opinion piece by Fr. Chad Ripperger on the subject of embryo adoption. His opinion then was that embryo adoption is not morally licit. But he also acknowledged that there had been no authoritative ruling, so to speak, about the issue, and he submitted his opinion to the final judgment of the Church. To my knowledge, the Church to date has not made an authoritative and binding statement concerning embyro adoption.<br /><br />So what to do in the meantime? It has been years now that embryo adoption has been practiced. Couples must make some kind of a decision about the matter if they have an interest in such adoption. There has to be some kind of working decision until the Church makes an authoritative one.<br /><br />"To the Question:<br />“Whether it is at any time permitted to extract from the womb of the mother ectopic fetuses still immature, when the sixth month after conception has not passed?”"<br /><br />This question was asked by someone who doesn't know medical science. It is not possible to extract any ectopic fetus from the mother's womb. The very definition of an ectopic fetus is that it has implanted OUTSIDE the mother's womb.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-36291206444522518632019-08-21T16:51:01.850-07:002019-08-21T16:51:01.850-07:00Jack,
You said:
"One chooses to rob a bank...Jack, <br /><br />You said:<br /><br />"One chooses to rob a bank, and the other chooses to hold a bag under a window which he knows bankrobbers will be throwing money out of . . . thus taking the bank's money, but without directly robbing the bank himself. This seems to be a better analogy. One kills the baby directly, the other puts the baby in a situation where death will immediately result."<br /><br />My original analogy is sufficient. It's point is to illustrate that it matters how a goal is accomplished and it does that.<br /><br />"So you think that Mary would choose to have her tube excised and would leave Jesus to die in those circumstances? Please just say yes or no."<br /><br />This is not a yes or no question.<br /><br />"If you think that this is the virtuous course of action, then surely you think this is what Mary would choose, seeing as Mary is certainly virtuous . . ."<br /><br />To surgically remove a pathological tube containing an embryo would be a blameless course of action as has already been explained, particularly since in a great many cases, the baby has died prior to the surgery. At the same time, Our Lady might have chosen to die with her son since she would know for certain that she would be with him for all eternity in Heaven. With such knowledge of her future, she would choose Heaven over Earth, I am sure.<br /><br />But this is a pointless exercise. The morality of surgically treating a tubal pregnancy is already established, and trying to apply the situation to Our Lady doesn't change that. God's plan for the mother of His son did not include complications of pregnancy, and that was for a reason. It was a necessity for God's son to live outside his mother until the point of adulthood. For many thousands of other babies, God's plan is different. He permits miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other maladies that prevent live birth. <br /><br />"According to him, some moral theologians hold that the use of the drug Methrotrexate to remove the baby in an ectopic pregnancy is morally permissible."<br /><br />You are aware, I hope, that there are always some theologians who challenge established moral theology. Dissenters always exist, sometimes in great numbers, even. Example: Pope St. JP II DEFINITIVELY established that the priesthood is reserved to men. But guess what? There are still those in the Church who argue that the question is open. So are you going to take the position that because there are dissenters regarding the issue of the male-only priesthood that the matter has not been settled? <br /><br />I will address your other posts separately. I can't spend all my time commenting on this blog.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-52414524770253054182019-08-21T13:17:45.286-07:002019-08-21T13:17:45.286-07:00So for years Catholic chaplains, under the directi...<br />So for years Catholic chaplains, under the directives of Catholic theologians, were allowing women to die with their babies rather than letting them cut their fallopian tubes in order to save their lives, since, at that time, this was understood still to be an abortion. But then in 1933 a Jesuit lawyer came along and said that those theologians and chaplains were wrong, those mothers' sacrifice was needless all along, since after all, the morally prudent thing WAS to cut the fallopian tube! You see, the former theologians, according to this Jesuit, did not properly understand which "causal chain" was relevant. And now, several decades later, even more enlightened lawyers are working on getting salpingostomies and methotrexate on the table for us. It's wonderful what lawyers – scribes and pharisees – can do with religion.<br /><br /><br /><i>To the Question:<br />“Whether it is at any time permitted to extract from the womb of the mother ectopic fetuses still immature, when the sixth month after conception has not passed?”<br /><br />The reply is:<br />“In the negative, according to the decree of Wednesday, the 4th of May, 1898, by the force of which care must be taken seriously and fittingly, insofar as it can be done, for the life of the fetus and that of the mother; moreover, with respect to time, according to the same decree, the orator is reminded that no acceleration of the birth is lict, unless it be performed at the time and according to the methods by which in the ordinary course of events the life of the mother and that of the fetus are considered.”<br /><br />From the reply of the Holy Office to the Dean of the faculty of theology of the University of Marienburg, March 5, 1902</i>Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-43775050039028280862019-08-21T13:17:34.157-07:002019-08-21T13:17:34.157-07:00Here's some nice history I found:
Ectopic Pre...Here's some nice history I found:<br /><br /><b>Ectopic Pregnancy</b><br /><br />Prior to 1933, Catholic medical ethicists permitted surgery only on an already ruptured fallopian tube. Their reasoning was essentially that prior to that time the cause of danger was the fetus, not the tube. Hence, any attempt to intervene would be a direct abortion, aimed at the fetus, and thus an intrinsically evil act. Some authors specifically mentioned the possibility of removing the tube with the fetus inside, but forbade this as direct abortion (Kelly 1979, 303; Finney 1922, 135). I remember speaking with a retired Catholic hospital chaplain who recalled his anguish at having to allow women to die from ectopic pregnancies; often the surgery, which had to be postponed until after tubal rupture, was too late.<br /><br />In 1933, Jesuit canon lawyer T. Lincoln Bouscaren, who had been an assistant district attorney in Oklahoma, wrote a dissertation for his doctorate in theology at the Gregorian University in Rome (Bouscaren 1933). <b>It was he who argued for the first time that a salpingectomy (removal of the tube with the fetus inside) was an indirect abortion.</b> To do so, he had to specify the act-in-itself as the removal of a pathological tube, which causes with equal causal immediacy both the good effect (removal of the pathology) and the bad effect (death of the fetus). Since the first two conditions of the PDE [principle of double effect] were passed, the abortion was indirect and hence lawful. He answered the objection of earlier authors that one must wait til the tube ruptured, since otherwise the cause of the problem would be the fetus and the abortion direct, by stating that that was not the causal chain that mattered. The cause of the problem (fetus or tube) was irrelevant. What counted was the causal chain of the act to intervene. And <i>this</i> causal chain did not contain a link where the bad effect caused the good effect. Hence, he argued, salpingectomy (the removal of the tube), even before the tube ruptured, was morally right. The chaplain I mentioned above considered Bouscaren a lifesaver, which he was.<br /><br />But Bouscaren was explicit in rejecting any "direct" attack on the fetus, as in salpingostomy, where the tube is slit open and the fetus removed. But since, when he wrote, this was not possible anyway, the rejection of salpingostomies was of no real practical import.<br /><br />This opinion quickly came to be accepted by the tradition, and the tradition changed to include it. When in 1971 the United States Catholic bishops published a revised edition fo the <i>Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Facilities</i>, they included a directive that explicitly and in detail required that Bouscaren's thesis be accepted. They allowed salpingectomies and rejected salpingostomies, spelling out each surgery precisely (United States Catholic Conference, Department of Health Affairs 1971, dir. 16).<br /><br />But medicine's advance has now brought us to the point where laparoscopic salpingostomies are often possible. Morbidity is significantly decreased, hospital time greatly reduced, costs cut, and sometimes the tube can be saved for future attempts at procreation. This procedure, which has become the standard of medical care in many cases, would seem to be forbidden by the received (physicalist) tradition of Catholic medical ethics. Proportionalists, of course, are not caught in this bind. We would simply say that we should do the procedure that causes the most good and the least harm. The fetus is lost whatever we do, even if we do nothing. Therefore, we should do the salpingostomy (or do a medical abortion by methotrexate); do whatever is best. That is the morally right thing to do (Kelly 1998).<br /><br />https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hpGMsOM27FgC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=zippy+catholic+salpingectomy&source=bl&ots=66H9WMFnHi&sig=ACfU3U39Nh7grwc_MLJu2ospKzgs3LIhoA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj63J6u3pTkAhUCVBUIHZV3BxoQ6AEwDXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false<br />Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-4160683359876558452019-08-21T13:16:54.300-07:002019-08-21T13:16:54.300-07:00Also, here is a paper which challenges the notion ...Also, here is a paper which challenges the notion that Double Effect Reasoning can be applied to the case of salpingectomy:<br />https://www.academia.edu/38904322/Double_Effect_and_Ectopic_Pregnancy_Some_Problems<br /><br />Here's another paper, which argues that methotrexate and salpingostomies are morally permissible: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1179/002436309803889106<br /><br />Here's another, which says speaks of a moral theologian arguing for the moral permissibility of methotrexate, while stating that it is still an open debate:<br />https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/reflections-peter-clarks-moral-analysis-use-methotrexate-ectopic-pregnancies/2007-05<br /><br />This seems to go against your assertion that the moral theologians have settled the matter. Indeed, they seem to still be debating it.<br />Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-46617094122901652662019-08-21T12:34:06.311-07:002019-08-21T12:34:06.311-07:00Also, you claim that moral theologians have settle...Also, you claim that moral theologians have settled the matter, but the moral theologian Fr. Tad Pacholczyk in the article referenced above by Peter Wilson ("When Pregnancy Goes Awry: The Moral Ending to an Ectopic Pregnancy") claims that it has not been settled and is still, at least to some degree, a matter of conscience. According to him, some moral theologians hold that the use of the drug Methrotrexate to remove the baby in an ectopic pregnancy is morally permissible.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-51101377501388327702019-08-21T12:28:48.308-07:002019-08-21T12:28:48.308-07:00"Suppose there are two men in desperate need ..."Suppose there are two men in desperate need of money. One chooses to rob a bank, and the other takes on a second job. Both achieve their desired end, but only one does so virtuously. How something is accomplished is critical."<br /><br />I don't think this is truly analogous to the situation we're dealing with. How about this. One chooses to rob a bank, and the other chooses to hold a bag under a window which he knows bankrobbers will be throwing money out of . . . thus taking the bank's money, but without directly robbing the bank himself. This seems to be a better analogy. One kills the baby directly, the other puts the baby in a situation where death will immediately result.<br /><br />"If Mary dies, then Jesus dies."<br /><br />So you think that Mary would choose to have her tube excised and would leave Jesus to die in those circumstances? Please just say yes or no. If you think that this is the virtuous course of action, then surely you think this is what Mary would choose, seeing as Mary is certainly virtuous . . .Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-54163413041253872992019-08-21T10:55:19.068-07:002019-08-21T10:55:19.068-07:00Jack,
You said:
"If the principle of double ...Jack,<br />You said:<br /><br />"If the principle of double effect applies in one case then I believe it must apply in the other as well. Are you really telling me that the difference between mortal sin and morally prudent (virtuous) behaviour in this case is a mere technicality?"<br /><br />I am telling you that the difference between mortal sin and sinlessness is determined by something that is very significant and much, much more than a "mere technicality." The principle of double effect CANNOT apply in the case of the direct killing of an unborn baby because the direct killing of the child in INTRINSICALLY evil, meaning that at no time and under no circumstances whatsoever can such an action be considered moral. Pope St. John Paul II says that explicitly!<br /><br />In the case of indirect killing, there is the possibility that the principle of double effect will apply, but the circumstances need to be examined closely to make that determination. How something is done is of the utmost importance. It's not a mere technicality. The Church rejects the Machiavellian principle that the ends justify the means. St. Paul tells us not to do evil so that good may come of it. From what you write, it seems that you simply don't appreciate that there is a significant difference between means, and you are content to conflate the different ways to accomplish something.<br /><br />Suppose there are two men in desperate need of money. One chooses to rob a bank, and the other takes on a second job. Both achieve their desired end, but only one does so virtuously. How something is accomplished is critical.<br /><br />"At this point it would be more honest just to say that the moral theologians are incapable of settling the matter..."<br /><br />Moral theologians can and have settled the matter.<br /><br /><br />"Do you think Our Lady would choose to have her tube (or a part of it), containing Jesus Christ, removed in order to save her own life, thus abandoning Jesus to death? Similarly, imagine that your own ectopic baby is Jesus Christ - what do you do?"<br /><br />If Mary dies, then Jesus dies. The situation as you present it means that there is no possible way for Jesus to survive and be born. But has already been stated, a significant percentage of embryos are already dead by the time the tubal pregnancy is diagnosed. Some medical authorities (AAPLOG) say that the vast majority of embryos are already dead by the time of diagnosis. This means that in many cases, if not most, there is no moral issue to even contend with.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-1319265006328968902019-08-21T05:11:05.464-07:002019-08-21T05:11:05.464-07:00Imagine a mother and child clinging to each other ...Imagine a mother and child clinging to each other as they freeze to death on a mountain. Both are set to die. The only way that either can live is if the mother let's go of the child and climbs down herself, saving her life but allowing the child to freeze to death on its own. The mother does not intend to kill the child. The child's death is a "foreseen but unintended effect" of her letting the baby go. She does not kill the baby directly. She knows that if she doesn't abandon the baby, both will die; she only intends to save her own life. <br />Is it morally permitted for the mother to abandon her child? Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-46791372273500386562019-08-21T05:05:02.004-07:002019-08-21T05:05:02.004-07:00Peter Watson,
Your first article does not suppor...Peter Watson, <br /><br />Your first article does not support your position. I couldn't get your second to work. The third article says that it's a matter of conscience. <br /><br />If you don't like the Caiphas analogy let's try another one. Imagine, for the sake of discussion, that a doctor tells the Blessed Virgin Mary that her baby (Christ our Lord) is ectopic, planted in the fallopian tube. Do you think Our Lady would choose to have her tube (or a part of it), containing Jesus Christ, removed in order to save her own life, thus abandoning Jesus to death? Similarly, imagine that your own ectopic baby is Jesus Christ - what do you do? Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-55701599872093333702019-08-21T04:37:42.299-07:002019-08-21T04:37:42.299-07:00You're getting lost in your own fog, Jack. Rea...You're getting lost in your own fog, Jack. Read up on the Catholic teaching on the principle of double effect as it applies to surgical excision of a pathological section of the fallopian tube. I listed these a couple of weeks ago:<br /><br />David Cruz-Uribe, “Ectopic Pregnancy and the Principle of Double Effect” VoxNova August 28, 2013. (Retrieved from https://www.patheos.com/blogs/voxnova/2013/08/28/ectopic-pregnancy-and-the-principle-of-double-effect/ 11/08/2019)<br />Fr. Charles Grondin, “Ectopic Pregnancy and Double Effect” Catholic Answers. (Retrieved from https://www.catholic.com/qa/ectopic-pregnancy-and-double-effect 08/11/2019<br />K. Schiffer, “When Pregnancy Goes Awry: The Moral Ending to an Ectopic Pregnancy” NCRegister Nov 7, 2015, (Retrieved from http://www.ncregister.com/blog/kschiffer/xxxxwhen-pregnancy-goes-awry-the-moral-ending-to-an-ectopic-pregnancy 08/11/2019)Peter Watsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-73752925027755914822019-08-20T23:48:26.397-07:002019-08-20T23:48:26.397-07:00Also I need to add that whether the mother kills h...Also I need to add that whether the mother kills her ectopic baby directly or indirectly, in neither case does the mother "want to kill her baby." This is why I find the implication that the mother who uses a pill to kill her baby directly is to be regarded essentially as a murderer, whereas the one who takes pains not to get her hands bloody and to arrange the child's death by starvation a prudent moral agent - a disgusting implication, yet one which follows directly from your argument. Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-60829696230767500712019-08-20T23:42:07.207-07:002019-08-20T23:42:07.207-07:00I understand the logic of your argument but I don&...I understand the logic of your argument but I don't see how it proves anything morally. To kill the baby (whose death you have pronounced "unavoidable") directly with a pill, or to kill it indirectly by excising the part of the organ in which it lives and abandoning it to starve to death - I really can't see how these are morally different in any significant way. <br /><br />If the principle of double effect applies in one case then I believe it must apply in the other as well. Are you really telling me that the difference between mortal sin and morally prudent (virtuous) behaviour in this case is a mere technicality? If Elizabeth kills her ectopic baby indirectly and Mary kills her ectopic baby directly, is God going to say to Mary, "sorry sweetheart, you didn't use the loophole that would allow you to kill your baby without sin. You're condemned," and to Elizabeth, "well done my daughter, that was a good trick to avoid getting yourself the blame for the baby's death. Come on in."??? One of these is a mortal sinner barred from Holy Communion, and one a prudent Catholic who followed the advice of the theologians?<br /><br /> At least the pagans are clear when they say it's OK to kill the baby to save the mother, and don't try to have their cake and eat it too.<br /><br /> It seems to me that the theologians got themselves in a bind: they didn't want to admit that abortion is OK in certain circumstances because that would conflict with the Magisterium and cede ground to the abortion lobby, but they also didn't want to tell mothers that it's better to die with your baby than to take action to kill it, so they went looking for a loophole which would allow them to get away with both at once. <br /><br />At this point it would be more honest just to say that the moral theologians are incapable of settling the matter, and that while the prohibition against killing your unborn child remains it's left to the conscience of the individual mother and doctor to decide whether that applies in such cases. I can't see why a Catholic mother who follows her doctor's advice to kill her baby with a pill should have her conscience disturbed for failing to use the loophole advocated by the moralists, and I can't see why a Catholic mother or her spouse should have their consciences disturbed if they decide to risk dying with their ectopic baby because they couldn't understand the moralists' prudent advice on how to kill their baby blamelessly. In either case why not just leave it to conscience and admit there's no clear solution? Indeed it would seem sinful to do otherwise. Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-25664002552801403192019-08-20T19:27:39.338-07:002019-08-20T19:27:39.338-07:00Jack,
The explanation is easy enough. Caiphas and...Jack,<br /><br />The explanation is easy enough. Caiphas and his fellow conspirators DESIRED the death of Jesus. They WANTED to kill him. The only question for them was how to best accomplish the deed. They saw fit to do it indirectly. There was no regret or sorrow on the part of the Pharisees as they plotted the death of Jesus.<br /><br />That is significantly different from NOT WANTING to kill an unborn baby. Mom and her medical providers do NOT WANT the death of the child. It's just that the death of the baby is not avoidable. BTW, in many cases, and according to some medical authorities, in most cases, babies of ectopic pregnancies are dead by the time of diagnosis. Removing a pathological tube commonly does not even involve the killing of a baby. <br /><br />I have stated at least TWICE that indirect killing is not permitted either unless the circumstances satisfy the requirements of the principle of double effect. There is an earlier post featuring an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 that explains the necessary requirements. As someone else said, double effect is part of Catholic moral teaching.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-6434338537045622572019-08-20T02:14:25.552-07:002019-08-20T02:14:25.552-07:00Not even remotely good apologetics Jack. Fail. Now...Not even remotely good apologetics Jack. Fail. Now go back over the string of comments by Anonymous (above), Nancy Reyes, other Anon women and me who have set out very clearly the Church's moral teaching on primary and secondary effect, primary and secondary intentions.<br />Your emotive disconnects might make you feel better but they will not persuade those who are seeking the authentic moral teaching of the Catholic Church.Peter Watsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-74373804638132759662019-08-19T23:20:30.173-07:002019-08-19T23:20:30.173-07:00The Gospel of John says,
"Now Caiphas was he ...The Gospel of John says,<br />"Now Caiphas was he who had given the counsel to the Jews: That it was expedient that one man should die for the people."<br /><br />The Jews had Jesus killed because they thought it would be better for one man to die than for all the nation to come under persecution because of one man's teaching. They didn't kill Him directly, but had the Romans kill Him instead.<br />So the Jewish High Priest:<br />- Did not directly wish the death of Jesus, but only indirectly to save the life of the nation. <br />- He did not directly kill Jesus, but indirectly (through the Romans). <br /><br />Please explain how this is different to:<br />- The doctor does not directly wish the death of the child, but only indirectly to save the life of the mother. <br />- He does not directly kill the baby, but only indirectly (through destroying the place where the baby lives). <br /><br />"It's better that one baby die than that the whole family should fall apart." <br /><br />Is this your reasoning? <br /><br />The does seem like a whole lot of disingenuous, pharisaical handwashing on the part of Catholics. "We can't kill the baby, but we CAN destroy the place where the baby lives, and... Oops, it's not our fault if the baby dies in the process." At that point why not just give the mother a pill that will kill her baby and save her the pain of the more dangerous procedure? <br /><br /><br />Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13858873453982708283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-45057808220475981452019-08-19T10:05:50.502-07:002019-08-19T10:05:50.502-07:00"I suspect the writer is either ignorant or h..."I suspect the writer is either ignorant or has an agenda to cloud the issue of abortion."<br /><br />Demonstrably, the write Corinna Swetz is incompetent. Just look at this direct quote taken from her article. She says:<br /><br />"There is a huge moral difference between an ectopic baby dying a natural death via miscarriage and being "terminated" by a doctor removing him or her from the womb."<br /><br />If a baby is in the womb, then it is not ectopic. The very definition of being ectopic is to be implanted outside of the womb. *facepalm*<br /><br />Then there is Swetz's definition of abortion. She says that abortion is:<br /><br />"...the artificial ejection of the living child from the mother’s womb."<br /><br />With such a definition, Swetz includes delivery by c-section and induced labor as abortion. Another *facepalm*.<br /><br />In another place, Swetz says that "Taking the life of the unborn under any circumstances is abortion."<br /><br />Meanwhile, Pope Saint John Paul II says, "Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that DIRECT abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (Evangelium Vitae 62).<br /><br />The key words there are "direct" and "willed." Indirect abortion that is not intended to take the life of the child is not always immoral and forbidden. If there is proportionate reason to INDIRECTLY take the life of a child and all the conditions for the principle of double effect are met, then it may be done even though it is a sorrowful event. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917 says that the life of the woman counts as much as the life of the child.<br /><br />Additionally, it is widely acknowledged that in a great many cases, the unborn baby is already dead by the time the ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed. On the low end of estimates is that of Fortenberry who says that slightly over 40% of tubal pregnancies are already dead by the time of diagnosis. On the higher end is that of AAPLOG which says that the vast majority (no specific percentage offered) are already dead by the time of diagnosis. <br /><br />Swetz also writes in a way as to imply that ALL killing is immoral, and this would necissarily include the execution of criminals by the state. The article is bungling and contrary to the Catholic faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-2851974165935884452019-08-19T03:13:53.519-07:002019-08-19T03:13:53.519-07:00the article is wrong: and I suspect the writer is ...the article is wrong: and I suspect the writer is either ignorant or has an agenda to cloud the issue of abortion. <br /><br />Treating an ectopic pregnancy is actually quite straightforward ethically and has nothing to do with abortion, any more than delivering a baby at 7 months when the mom has pre eclampsia etc. is abortion: you aren't planning to kill the kid, and in the latter case, you try to save the kid, not kill him. <br /><br />If you have an ectopic pregnancy where the fetal sac is growing in the tube, the fallopian tube can only stretch a little bit; so what happens is that the tube will burst and the baby will die and mother will die with it<br /><br /> If you want to be picky about it, if the baby as a heart beat you can watch the baby's heartbeat with an ultrasound and delay surgery until the heart stops, and then rush mom into surgery. But tell the truth this would be rare, since most times the mom doesn't come in to see you until the tube has started to rupture and the baby is dead.<br /><br />one note:<br /><br />Nowadays, often doctors "kill" the fetus with methotrexate so mom doesn't have to go through surgery. However, as a Catholic, I believe this would be forbidden, since this would be a type of direct killing.<br /><br />Does the baby ever survive an ectopic pregnancy? <br /><br />now you are getting into the "one in a million" case.<br /><br />Once in very great while, the sac "aborts" to the abdomen and the placenta manages to grow in a way that the tube is not destroyed. But then you have an abdominal pregnancy.<br /><br />Abdominal pregnancies usually will not go to term because there isn't enough nutrition for the baby to develop since the placenta implants on the omentum, not the vascular inside of the uterus. Medically the baby is removed as soon as we diagnose the problem: Although if mom wants to save the baby and is willing to risk it, we allow the baby to continue until it is viable, e.g. 7 months.<br /><br />I have seen one abdominal pregnancy in my 40 years of medicine: when I was a missionary in Africa. The mom came in because the baby stopped moving at 7 months. We had to remove the dead baby, and had to leave the placenta in place, since removing it could have resulted in mother hemorrhaging. Luckily she didn't get infected or hemorrhage and she lived, but not all cases end up that happily.<br /><br />Nancy Reyeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14910134058143426327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4404498638452030181.post-67659675031106179942019-08-18T16:14:46.287-07:002019-08-18T16:14:46.287-07:00"When a person continuously asserts his views..."When a person continuously asserts his views as "Anonymous," it brings into question his credibility. Obviously he doesn't stand behind what he is saying."<br /><br />This is a ridiculous comment. The truthfulness or accuracy of any remarks is determined by what is actually said and not by who says it or how he identifies himself. Your identifying yourself as David Martin does not make anything you say more true and credible than if you had posted anonymously. The name of Tancred does not even serve to identify that individual. <br /><br />"Ectopic pregnancies do pose some danger, but pro-aborts stretch it to the limit by insisting the child and mother "inevitably" die from this when there is much evidence to the contrary."<br /><br />As I have said before, ectopic pregnancies are not an automatic death sentence. But without a doubt, they are a serious medical condition that call for medical care. Many Trads commit the opposite fault of the pro-aborts. The Trads minimize the danger of ectopic pregnancies because they are rigorists. Trads are afraid to acknowledge the real and important difference between the direct and indirect killing of an unborn child.<br /><br />As I have already said, the direct killing of a child is always forbidden. It is an intrinsic evil meaning that at no time and under no circumstances may a child be licitly killed directly. <br /><br />The indirect killing of a child is different in an important way from direct killing. Indirectly killing a child is sorrowful, but it can be tolerated if the conditions for the principle of the double effect are met. And if those conditions are not met, then the indirect killing of a child is also forbidden.<br /><br />This distinction is real, but many Trads don't want to accept it. Their reason is that they fear that the distinction will be sinfully exploited. They think the remedy is to deny the distinction. Denying the distinction between the direct and indirect killing of an unborn child helps nothing and is morally wrong.<br /><br />It is morally wrong because it is contrary to the Catholic faith. It is morally wrong because it can cause people of good will to erroneously forgo necessary medical care. It is morally wrong because it can cause scandal. The rigorist point of view presents the Catholic faith as being an unreasonable one, and this could cause people to either leave the faith or reject the idea of converting to it. <br /><br />That Tancred guy has falsely accused me of equivocating. He is the one who has refused to define abortion. He is the one who has rejected the real distinctions that Mother Church makes. He is the one who conflates different medical situations and different medical interventions. Lumping everything together without distinction the way that he does is an example of equivocation.<br /><br />It is true that many pro-aborts will make any excuse to kill a child. But it is also true that many Trads will look for any excuse to condemn others. It is a kind of sport with them. Falsely accusing and condemning others is not part of the Catholic faith, but it is commonly part of being a Trad. This is really what we're looking at.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com